Process : Creation of Human

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

The parallels between song bird learning and human language learning are significant even on a non-molecular level, so studying the genetic components involved is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. The parrot genome also shows a lot of promise, considering that they can produce more similar speech to our own and demonstrate similar levels and types of cognition to ourselves than even many of our most closely related species, such as the other great apes. The allelic components that govern these phenomenon are certainly worth studying as they have the potential to unlock secrets not just about the birds themselves, but about ourselves. The idea that we may be able to apply what we learn to human medical science is certainly a reasonable expectation and at the very least, even if we don't learn enough to combat speech disorders directly, these studies will provide a foundation on which to base other studies that may yield more relevant data, as well as contributing to our vast database of knowledge that at some point may even be applied to something that we haven't forseen yet.

"Scientists" as a whole do not make a lot of money. You would be lead to believe that they do, due to the large amount of funding that many projects receive, but this money is not going into the pockets of the scientists; it is consumed by the costs of the experiments and equipment and a lot of it is syphoned off by the university or organization at which the scientists are employed. The only means by which a scientist can reasonably expect to become wealthy through these studies is by publishing enough research and becoming valuable enough to their field of study that they can make a living on the lecture circuit and by convincing their universities to consider them for raises and tenure. However, these scientists are generally not paid to publish their work and are usually not compensated for their involvement in the studies. In fact, they are often required even to pay their own travel expenses.

acting naturally to defy natural selection, very good

Humans are not "defying" natural selection, they're reacting to selection pressures in a different way than other organisms. This is the exact evolutionary phenomenon that has always motivated speciation.

 

[razoredge]

I was mostly bustin balls BMWG but alot of what I said is bottom line truth. Alot of money has been spent over the past 60+ years with little fruitation and that is job security for those involved in those fields. We have had a health cost crisis for a very long time and it has come from trying to beat the inevitable... from the research lab to the hospitol bed, I dont care what anyone says its a big money grab, first and foremost.

I think I told you before but my brother in law is a plant genetics cloner, you can remind me of the proper title. Is one of the top professors at UT and has done some around the globe travel doing lectures. They live well, hes a great guy. He's currently working on a hopefully worthy project that is cloning some plant, I forget if its sugar cane or something else for bio fuel. I guess the objective of the clone is multiple, for rapid production, potency and IIRC also process easier/faster.

Another project they were comptemplating about 10 years ago was the hemp plant for use as fiber for paper. Cloned so it would glow a differnt color under light than cannibus and also rapid stalk growth. I forget what he said happened to that idea. Myself I think they should just grow the real stuff, keep the stalks and sell the bud... LOL

Natural vrs natural selection

self preservation is natural, however extending the life of those genetically less fit is not "self", its performed by others for the purpose of equity with a touch of heartbleed. Most of the heartbleed is done by those who will truely suffer a loss, who also cant help other than handing over large sums of money to the helpers. You would have to work a "helper" over pretty good to see a tear.

now the "helpers" are acting naturally on thier greed for their version of self preservation, they are preying, I call these the brains of prey.

Please remember that I am potentially genetically unfit with a mother that died a 36 and father at 67 from cancer related illnesses. Much was spent on my mother and guess what, she died 6 months later. A fair amount was spent on my father but he only gave them 10 days to run the vacuume.

What is truely "natural" here is life and death... inevitable and go hand in hand.

The alternative natural is preying on the hopes of the scared for profit... who are naturally scared. Has not got a single fucking thing to do with self perservation. Would one wish me to think the human race see's itself as endangered and thus is simply acting against natural selection as self perservation of its entire species ?

natural human actions/reactions doth not = natural selection

I see two different definations and do not agree otherwise

 

[Frontal Lobotomy]

That's not a theory. In fact, that's not even a hypothesis, it's just an idea. A theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by the scientific process, which involves, experimentation, peer review, retestability, and the possibility to be disproven. Evolution is still a theory after 150 years, because it has proven itself against even the most rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Actually, being a type of idea or question, or simply a statement that might or might not be true, is the very definition of a hypothesis...and also a theory (except the latter being a set of explanatory statements rather than a single statement). Consequently, his idea is, in fact, a hypotheses, which is a question that is waiting for evidence to support or refute it. I repeat the word support, because a theory can never be proven, only supported by experimental evidence, which in itself would make it scientific. Therein lies the self-contradiction of your statement about Evolution. Evolution is a theory, but it is one that is untestable and therefore in its own merit, unscientific. It just makes sense that some things would exist as products of evolution, but we can never, ever experimentally test these theories, and therefore, they can never be refuted. This makes evolution unscientific by today's scientific research paradigm. Not saying that you called it scientific, but it hasn't really proven itself in any way.
I'm open to the possibility that I have completely misunderstood you, and if that's the case, I apologize

I know this might sound ironic having said all that, but I'm actually a great believer in the Evolutionary theory. I think it hard to reject even for religious people, although they don't seem to have a problem with doing that. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said I'm just being a pedantic ass

 

[Blowtus]

What is untestable about evolution?

 

[Frontal Lobotomy]

What is untestable about evolution?

I was thinking more of the sort 'Can you test the hypotheses that man evolved from the apes?'. You really can't, you can only look at the post hoc evidence and our common genetic material. Well, one can test what is inferred to be evolutionary mechanisms, as in the research with the fruit fly, so I admit I was a bit hasty in my last post. Some facets of evolution are testable. The point I was actually trying to make is that nothing has been proven. Evolution is still a theory and not a statement of fact. I think pushing evolution as factual makes religious people stand their ground even more firmly, and it makes us seem just as mulish.

 

[Blowtus]

Well, you were saying evolution can't be tested and is unscientific, but I'm happier with your new position. All evidence is post-hoc, some is just more post than others. We have good reasons for believing we share a common ancestor with modern day apes.

This 'still a theory' line is vacuous bullshit. Everything is still a fucking theory, but some show themselves to be a lot more useful than others. We then label these using historically derived terms (truth, fact) that aren't necessarily logically justifiable, but serve a functional purpose.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Actually, being a type of idea or question, or simply a statement that might or might not be true, is the very definition of a hypothesis...and also a theory (except the latter being a set of explanatory statements rather than a single statement). Consequently, his idea is, in fact, a hypotheses, which is a question that is waiting for evidence to support or refute it.

In this case I would still disagree that his idea is a hypothesis because it is not "waiting" for evidence to support or refute it. It is an idea that he has presented, despite the fact that contradictory evidence has already been identified and accepted.

I repeat the word support, because a theory can never be proven, only supported by experimental evidence, which in itself would make it scientific. Therein lies the self-contradiction of your statement about Evolution. Evolution is a theory, but it is one that is untestable and therefore in its own merit, unscientific. It just makes sense that some things would exist as products of evolution, but we can never, ever experimentally test these theories, and therefore, they can never be refuted. This makes evolution unscientific by today's scientific research paradigm. Not saying that you called it scientific, but it hasn't really proven itself in any way.

Currently, our specific evolutionary history may not be directly testable, but it can be inferred from multiple empirical sources (geology, archeology, genetics) and accepted in confidence by their overwhelming consistency with each other.

However, even though we cannot directly reproduce our own evolution in a controlled setting, we can still test and accept the general theory of evolution as it applies to other species that are currently evolving much more rapidly than ourselves. The most obvious example is the struggle of the medical and pest control industries to keep up to date with quickly mutating, highly adaptable parasites.

Also, here is a direct test using a vertebrate species in a naturalistic environment:

http://www.physorg.com/news192715886.html

Many people are skeptical of evolutionary biology because they perceive it as a purely historical science that can't be tested experimentally. Here, we're providing a real experimental test of natural selection as it happens in the wild. That's an exciting way for us to advance the public's perception of evolution

I'm open to the possibility that I have completely misunderstood you, and if that's the case, I apologize

I know this might sound ironic having said all that, but I'm actually a great believer in the Evolutionary theory. I think it hard to reject even for religious people, although they don't seem to have a problem with doing that. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said I'm just being a pedantic ass

I think you actually clarified the word "hypothesis" more articulately than I did. My only objection is the one mentioned above.

 

[Frontal Lobotomy]

In this case I would still disagree that his idea is a hypothesis because it is not "waiting" for evidence to support or refute it. It is an idea that he has presented, despite the fact that contradictory evidence has already been identified and accepted.

Why not, I'm sure that the church of scientology is working on it as we speak You also forget that the 'contradictory evidence' is accepted only by a tiny minority...

I'm bored today...:Spin:

 

[metal_wrath]

Historically, humans' lifespan is at a maximum 12X years. If you look at it one way this is quite reasonable. It would be ridiculous to question mortality itself as everything in the universe has an end. Therefore it is only a question of how long we live before we die. If humans lived for say 500 years would we be better off, would we be more satisfied with living a few hundred years longer and be less intimidated or controlled by death? Human beings also have the ability to end each others' life at any time, would this change if we lived longer? I think the fact that we don't live a bit longer is not something which could be viewed as a defect.

 

[monoxide_child]

http://www.physorg.com/news192715886.html

really interesting link

 

[Wyrm Rider]

Is there a possibility that in fact God created us but he is different to how we perceive in that he allowed evolution to take hold? Also, it is true to say that where as animals need to keep evolving to survive, we reached a point, around seven thousand years ago were the need to change was stumped, probably because we have no natural predators any more.

 

[Badbird]

I believe in evolution.

 

[Wyrm Rider]

I do too but I believe evolution was started by a super natural being
(aka God)

 

[monoxide_child]

Also, it is true to say that where as animals need to keep evolving to survive, we reached a point, around seven thousand years ago were the need to change was stumped, probably because we have no natural predators any more.

humans are still evolving

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Are-We-Still-Evolving-/26638/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-human-beings-still-ev

http://www.kmcauliffe.com/Kathleen_McAuliffe/Evolution_files/Are We Evolving 2.pdf

 

[Dak]

This forum is evidence to the contrary.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Is there a possibility that in fact God created us but he is different to how we perceive in that he allowed evolution to take hold? Also, it is true to say that where as animals need to keep evolving to survive, we reached a point, around seven thousand years ago were the need to change was stumped, probably because we have no natural predators any more.

This is one of the greatest misconceptions about human evolution. We have not "defeated" natural selection and we have not reached a "final stage" after which no further change is possible or necessary. The idea that natural selection "no longer applies" to humans is extremely ignorant and short sighted and probably stems from the idea that humans were created in their current form by a deity and that the details of our biology are both intentional and permanent.

Contrary to popular belief, selection pressures against Homo sapiens have not disappeared, they're merely changed. In fact, changing selection pressures are the primary forces that have been perpetuating evolution since it first began. Also of interest is the fact that human genetic variation has increased more in the past few centuries than it has in the past several thousand years and that our "natural selection stopping" technology is the leading cause of this change. Historically, many infants never reached reproductive age and this high mortality rate actually kept the population allelic frequency rather stable for quite some time, just as it does in wild animal populations. However, with the assistance of technology, it is now possible to keep more people alive long enough to reproduce than ever before and, as a result, more genomic modifications survive that might have otherwise resulted (directly or indirectly) in the death of the individual.

The idea that humans have no remaining natural predators is also a misconception of those of us who are lucky enough to live in developed nations. You and I may not be in danger of frequent attack by predatory megafauna, but there are places in the world where this is still a concern. There are also masses of pathogens and parasites that are STILL decimating human populations, at least occasionally.

 

[Caligulan Blood]

I have thought long and hard about this, but why have we ended up the way we have?

As a race, we are jealous, hateful, ignorant, and sadistic.. We are unintelligent to the extreme. I'm just fornicating ideas here.

We are also made pretty shitty. Our vision gives away with age... our teeth are non replaceable, Limbs cannot regenerate.

If you look at other species, like a bird. It can see something a mile away with ease. If evolution was our reason, (Which I don't partake in it's theory) you'd think it would make us more durable as a species, hell, we only live a century at most.

You could say that we are magnificent and intelligent, but who do we have to compare to but ourselves? There are many proofs of how stupid we are, but nothing that we are aware of orknow is smarter.

My theory is that we were created. by godlike people... but not, "god" from the bible.. more of an omniscient ET species who have been splicing genes, Evolution of humans, the conception of it is too ... well, it leaves too many questions unanswered. existence is complex.

Technically evolution only takes place when a species needs to reproduce and is having trouble keeping up making young. Different species have different needs. We are social animals and so we make use of our brains more than any other limb or organ in or on our bodies. This is why we're the dominant species on earth. We have no enemy but ourselves. You say we have nothing to compare ourselves to so we can't call ourselves smart? Well what about monkeys and other apes? We're pretty much them just less hairy, they live in the forest, we live in more comfort than any species on earth has ever known. Every species is different, but I bet if any of them were sentient, then they would want to be one of us, not one of them. I can almost guarantee you a bird would choose a human brain and body over it's own fragile body and "good eye sight". We got the best bodies of any creature anyway, with proper exercise, we can travel the entire world on foot, (no other animal has the human foot btw) and we have hands with THUMBS!THUMBS! And we have shed almost all of our original hair, the hair on our bodies is now lighter and thinner, making it easier for us to live in the deserts and planes and mountain tops. You say we're weak but what other animal on earth has accomplished as much? lives in every climate on earth and thrives. None. Exactly.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Technically evolution only takes place when a species needs to reproduce and is having trouble keeping up making young.

Not true. Evolution is simply a change in allelic frequency and takes place when a chromatic modification is successful enough to reproduce itself. Sometimes this results in the host organism gaining a reproductive advantage and sometimes it is just "junk DNA" that spreads by chance. Either event can occur independently of whether a species is struggling to "keep up." All that is necessary is that the new alleles either enhance the host's reproductive success or don't interfere with it. "Keeping up" typically affects evolution only when enough of a population is wiped out to create a genetic bottleneck, which may or may not favor a specific allelic sequence.

Different species have different needs. We are social animals and so we make use of our brains more than any other limb or organ in or on our bodies. This is why we're the dominant species on earth.

By whose standard? You're defining dominance from an extremely ethnocentric perspective.

We have no enemy but ourselves.

We have plenty of enemies, we're just fortunate enough in our culture to not have to deal with them on a daily basis. Move to a region where clean water is a scarcity and personal hygiene is a luxury and you will be surprised by how many natural enemies are still out there.

We got the best bodies of any creature anyway, with proper exercise, we can travel the entire world on foot, (no other animal has the human foot btw) and we have hands with THUMBS!THUMBS!

We really don't have the best bodies at all. In fact, our comparatively feeble bodies made us vulnerable to much predation in our evolutionary history and it was one of the primary selection pressures that caused our brains and social structures to develop as they did. No other animal has the human foot, but how many animals can you think of that would actually benefit from switching their own feet with ours? Our feet are specifically adapted to suit our locomotive strategy and would actually be deleterious if applied to most other species.

And we have shed almost all of our original hair, the hair on our bodies is now lighter and thinner, making it easier for us to live in the deserts and planes and mountain tops.

Our reduction in body hair is more likely to be the result of intraspecies sexual selection and parasite resistance than an environmental adaptation. It's true that humans can live almost anywhere in the world, but this is due to our ability to learn how to modify our surroundings as well as create tools and protective clothing. It has very little, if anything, to do with our lack of body hair.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Is there a possibility that in fact God created us but he is different to how we perceive in that he allowed evolution to take hold? Also, it is true to say that where as animals need to keep evolving to survive, we reached a point, around seven thousand years ago were the need to change was stumped, probably because we have no natural predators any more.

1. the theory of evolution has nothing to say as to whether or not God got the evolutionary process going which has created us. such a belief is a matter of philosophical/theological speculation.
2. fundamentally our species has not undergone significant evolutionary changes in about 100,000 years... however many smaller changes have occured in that time.
3. humans still have natural predators... they're called microbes- parasites, bacteria, viruses that infect us and live off of us and make us sick or kill us. also, stick any human in an environment in which we are considered food or a threat to another animal and they will attack.

 

[Caligulan Blood]

1. the theory of evolution has nothing to say as to whether or not God got the evolutionary process going which has created us. such a belief is a matter of philosophical/theological speculation.
2. fundamentally our species has not undergone significant evolutionary changes in about 100,000 years... however many smaller changes have occured in that time.
3. humans still have natural predators... they're called microbes- parasites, bacteria, viruses that infect us and live off of us and make us sick or kill us. also, stick any human in an environment in which we are considered food or a threat to another animal and they will attack.

Actually Microbes,parasites, bacteria, and viruses don't "prey" on us, they exist in us like we exist in the planet, and like how we used the earths rotation to fly to the moon. We are host, but they aren't "preying on us". Preying would be them deliberately hunting mankind out to extinction, and they have never mounted a large scale assault on mankind. There have been outbreaks of certain diseases, but all those microbes etc. use us like we use the planet. We drill for oil, dig up and explode huge areas of land, we cut down entire forests, but we aren't preying on the planet. One day we may be able to fly to other planets and then we will colonize them and begin the process we have here, domesticate animals, mine and collect resources, in habit until it is unusable. That's what microbes etc. do, they all use us to live and reproduce on, there are many microbes, parasites, viruses and shit that are in us right now and aren't hurting us at all! Some hurt us, some don't. In other words, Thoth-Amon, despite our shared interest in Robert E. Howards Literature, you're incorrect.
@ the guy above Thoth - to long; didn't read.